Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Software controlled electron mechanical systems reliability

586 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

The presentation describes how to conduct reliability planning and testing for software controlled electron-mechanical systems. It is based on working experience in US FDA, FCC and European CE regulated companies. The presentation provides practical and rational steps to improve product reliability and comply with applicable regulations.

Veröffentlicht in: Technologie, Business
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Software controlled electron mechanical systems reliability

  1. 1. Software controlled Electro‐ Mechanical Systems Reliability 软件控制的电子机械系统可靠 性 David Tu 杜允健 ©2011 ASQ & Presentation Tu Presented live on Apr 13th, 2011http://reliabilitycalendar.org/The_Reliability_Calendar/Webinars_‐_Chinese/Webinars_‐_Chinese.html
  2. 2. ASQ Reliability Division  Chinese Webinar  Series One of the monthly webinars  on topics of interest to  reliability engineers. To view recorded webinar (available to ASQ Reliability  Division members only) visit asq.org/reliability To sign up for the free and available to anyone live  webinars visit reliabilitycalendar.org and select English  Webinars to find links to register for upcoming eventshttp://reliabilitycalendar.org/The_Reliability_Calendar/Webinars_‐_Chinese/Webinars_‐_Chinese.html
  3. 3. http://sites.google.com/site/resiliencereliability/ Software controlled Electro-Mechanical Systems Reliability by David Tu
  4. 4.     
  5. 5. AGENDA•  Introduction•  Government agencies•  Standards and Guidelines•  Reliability model and function•  Case Study•  Conclusion & Discussing
  6. 6. INTRODUCTION GoalDevelop reliable software controlled electronic mechanical systems. Approach ,Utilize agencies and regulations as supportive guidelines instead of obstacles. Procedures1) Identify government agencies2) Understand regulations and standards3) Identify activities and develop procedures4) Develop Reliability Program, MTBF analysis and test plan5) Collaborate analysis and test6) Review results7) Perform root cause analysis for findings8) Collaborate and implement corrective actions9) Write reports10)Monitor and improve reliability during product life cycle
  7. 7. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES•  Food and Drug Administration FDA http://www.fda.gov/ Develop and enforce compliance for safety, effectiveness and reliability. FDA does not develop engineering specifications and standards for Medical Devices. FDA regulations are free for reference.•  International Electrotechnical Commission http://www.iec.ch/ Develop regulatory and engineering safety specifications and standards for medical device safety. Medical devices at European market requires CE marking. It is a self declaration process with the compliance of all applicable standards. IEC standards are available for purchase online.
  8. 8. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS Food and Drug Administration FDA ; , 21 CFR Parts 808, 812, and 820 Medical Devices; Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) Final Rules Monday, October 7, 1996 Page 2SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background (Design controls vs. Production controls)“Specifically, in January 1990, FDA published the results of an evaluation of device recalls thatoccurred from October 1983 through September 1989, in a report entitled ‘‘Device Recalls: A Studyof Quality Problems’’. FDA found that approximately 44 percent of the quality problems that led tovoluntary recall actions during this 6-year period were attributed to errors or deficiencies that weredesigned into particular devices and may have been prevented by adequate design controls.”“A subsequent study of software-related recalls for the period of fiscal year 1983 through 1991indicated that over 90 percent of all software related device failures were due to design relatederrors, generally, the failure to validate software prior to routine production.”Note: FDA makes CGMP as a regulation for companies to comply with.
  9. 9. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS Food and Drug Administration FDA21 CFR Parts 808, 812, and 820 Medical Devices; Current GoodManufacturing Practice (CGMP) Final RuleA. General Provisions, page 55, § 820.3 Definitions(b) Complaint means any written, electronic, or oral communication thatalleges deficiencies related to the identity, quality, durability, reliability,safety, effectiveness, or performance of a device after it is released fordistribution.
  10. 10. ; General Principles of Software Validation; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Document issued on: January 11, 20022.4. Regulatory requirements for software validationThe FDA s analysis of 3140 medical device recalls conducted between 1992 and 1998 revealsThat 242 of them (7.7%) are attributable to software failures. Of those software related recalls,192 (or 79%) were caused by software defects that were introduced when changes weremade to the software after its initial production and distribution. Software validation and otherrelated good software engineering practices discussed in this guidance are a principal meansof avoiding such defects and resultant recalls.4.4. Software life cycleSoftware validation takes place within the environment of an established software life cycle. Thesoftware life cycle contains software engineering tasks and documentation necessary to supportthe software validation effort. In addition, the software life cycle contains specific verification andValidation tasks that are appropriate for the intended use of the software. This guidance does notrecommend any particular life cycle models - only that they should be selected and used for aSoftware Development project.
  11. 11. ; General Principles of Software Validation; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Document issued on: January 11, 20023.3. SOFTWARE IS DIFFERENT FROM HARDWAREWhile software shares many of the same engineering tasks as hardware, it has some veryImportant differences. For example:•  One of the most significant features of software is branching, i.e., the ability to execute alternative series of commands, based on differing inputs. This feature is a major contributing factor for another characteristic of software – its complexity. Even short programs can be very complex and difficult to fully understand.•  Typically, testing alone cannot fully verify that software is complete and correct. In addition to testing, other verification techniques and a structured and documented development process should be combined to ensure a comprehensive validation approach.•  Unlike hardware, software is not a physical entity and does not wear out. In fact, software may improve with age, as latent defects are discovered and removed. However, as software is constantly updated and changed, such improvements are sometimes countered by new defects introduced into the software during the change.•  Unlike some hardware failures, software failures occur without advanced warning. The software s branching that allows it to follow differing paths during execution, may hide some latent defects until long after a software product has been introduced into the marketplace.
  12. 12. ; General Principles of Software Validation; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Document issued on: January 11, 2002•  Another related characteristic of software is the speed and ease with which it can be changed. This factor can cause both software and non-software professionals to believe that software problems can be corrected easily. Combined with a lack of understanding of software, it can lead managers to believe that tightly controlled engineering is not needed as much for software as it is for hardware. In fact, the opposite is true. Because of its complexity, the development process for software should be even more tightly controlled than for hardware, in order to prevent problems that cannot be easily detected later in the development process.•  Seemingly insignificant changes in software code can create unexpected and very significant problems elsewhere in the software program. The software development process should be sufficiently well planned, controlled, and documented to detect and correct unexpected results from software changes.
  13. 13. ; General Principles of Software Validation; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Document issued on: January 11, 2002•  Given the high demand for software professionals and the highly mobile workforce, the software personnel who make maintenance changes to software may not have been involved in the original software development. Therefore, accurate and thorough documentation is essential.•  Historically, software components have not been as frequently standardized and interchangeable as hardware components. However, medical device software developers are beginning to use component-based development tools and techniques. Object-oriented methodologies and the use of off-the-shelf software components hold promise for faster and less expensive software development. However, component-based approaches require very careful attention during integration. Prior to integration, time is needed to fully define and develop reusable software code and to fully understand the behavior of off-the-shelf components. For these and other reasons, software engineering needs an even greater level of Managerial scrutiny and control than does hardware engineering.
  14. 14. Reliability model and functionA Reliability Program detects, identifies and mitigates the risks ofproduct defects. Design Inputs and Planning End of Life Design Verification Analysis and and Validation Report Reliability Program Management Full Market Release Limited Commercial Surveillance and Release Surveillance Control and Control
  15. 15. Reliability model
  16. 16. Reliability Modeling with assumptions MechanicalMechanical reliability is assumed to be a Normal distribution.Hardware (Electronic systems, subsystems, components, connectors and PCBA etc.) )Reliability function is assumed to be an Exponential distribution. Its Mean (MTBF) isa Chi-Square distribution. Include infant mortality and wear-out high failure rate periods. Software ,Software reliability function is assumed to be a discrete uniform distribution with constantfailure rates. System ,System Reliability function is assumed to be a combination of Normal, Exponential and discrete uniformdistribution. Mechanical MTBF is the mean of a normal distribution. Hardware and Software MTBF is a Chi-Square distribution. System has higher failure rates at infant mortality and wear-out periods. Software failure rateelevates System failure rate Bathtub curve. The combination of three sub-systems need more study. Should bemodeled by life tests, not mathematical models.
  17. 17. Reliability Modeling Diagram System Software/Electronic/Mechanical Confidence = 80% Reliability = 90% Software Confidence = 80% Reliability = 96% Electronics Confidence = 80% Reliability = 96% Mechanical Confidence = 80% Reliability = 96%•  Allocate 7.7% x 5 factor to estimated failure rate for software reliability•  Mechanical part has the highest failure rate allocation by author’s experience•  Field return database provides realistic pictures
  18. 18. CASE STUDY 产 Pre Production Release PRODUCT: Pacemaker Interrogating Equipment Tests Performed•  ( ) Performance tests (Various Pacemakers)•  Safety (Electromagnetic Compatibility and Safety per CE marking regulation)•  Environmental tests (Vibration, Temperature, Humidity)•  MTBF Prediction (SR-332)•  风险 Risk Analysis•  Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis•  Submit and obtain FDA approval
  19. 19. CASE STUDY Production Release PRODUCT: Pacemaker Interrogating Equipment•  Supplier surveillance - Supplier yield improvement - Supplier final inspection and test control, development and implementation•  Production quality assurance - 进 检验 试验开发 实 Incoming inspection and test development and implementation - Production line inspection and test development and implementation•  Engineering update and upgrade controls - Review, re-test, re-verify and control changes•  Field returns management - Root Cause Analysis - Engineering for all identified failures - Re-verification and implement solutions - Document all findings and corrective actions - -
  20. 20. CASE STUDY PRODUCT: Pacemaker Interrogating Equipment End of Product Life Cycle Analysis•  Documentation  - - Equipment models, serial numbers and corrective actions- - What, when, who, where, why and how•  - Failure Return data base analysis
  21. 21. •   FDA •   FDA IEC60601 - 1 , ISO14971 EN1441 IEC60601 - 1 – 4 •     •   SUMMARY•  Author confirms FDA failure rate guidance by experience•  Comply with FDA Good Manufacturing Practice, IEC60601-1 Safety, Risk Analysis per ISO14971(EN1441) & IEC60601-1-4•  Perform Risk Analysis, Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis, MTBF prediction, Accelerated Life Tests, Environmental tests, Validation tests & Safety compliance tests•  Analyze test results, confirm root causes and collaborate corrective actions